Pakistan army announced on 24 January a successful training of its short-range ballistic missile, “Nasr”, which is believed to have a range of just 60 kilometres. The 60-kilometre range Nasr missile as “a high precision, shoot and scoot Weapon System with the ability of in-flight maneuverability. The missile is able to defeat the ballistic missile defence being developed by India. The missile can carry both conventional and nuclear warheads, but it is known more for its capability to carry nuclear warheads of suitable yield. Nasr is launched from a multi-tube launcher, capable of launching four successive missiles. It is considered as the high-precision weapon system that can be prepared for launch in a short time.

Nasr was introduced in April 2011, developed in response to India’s Cold Start doctrine, the existence of which was officially confirmed by Indian Army Chief Gen Bipin Rawat. The tactical nuclear weapon system, it is said, is meant to deny space to India for conventional conflict below the nuclear threshold.

In fact, the NASR has been developed as the Pakistan army of last resort against Indian Cold Start Doctrine. According to the former head of the Strategic Plan Division (SPD) Retd Lt General Kidwai, the nuclear weapons would be only used “if the very existence of Pakistan as a state is at stake.” The sole aim of the nuclear weapons is to deter Indian aggression. He also stated that Indian CSD is an offensive limited war strategy designed to seize Pakistan’s territory swiftly, hence, the developments of TNWs have sufficiently blocked the avenues for serious military operation from the Indian military side. The Nasr can carry a small-yield “sub-kilotonne” nuclear weapon not to designed widespread damage. It has been designed to protect the Pakistan’s national interest and to provoke international intervention to stop India from designing hawkish policies.

Pakistan’s use of tactical nuclear weapon would aim to minimize the destruction and to avoid the provoking a massive Indian retaliation which New Dehli nuclear doctrine mandates. According to many Analysts Pakistan is unlikely to use the Nasr on Indian territory, but, it would used against the Indian forces deep inside Pakistan territory.

Pakistan does not believe in the arms race, the development of short range missile is part of Pakistan’s security policy because India has supremacy in conventional force and it spends more money than Pakistan on its military force modernization. For instance, India tested a long-range nuclear-capable missile on 14 January from an island in the Bay of Bengal. According to the Indian defence ministry the Agni-5 intercontinental ballistic missile, was made from a mobile launcher, and “further strengthens indian credible deterrence”. While, the increase in the military capability of India always intensifies the security dilemma of Pakistan thus, it opposed India’s cruise and ballistic missiles’ development because, its short and long range weapons undermine Pakistan’s security. India has been developing outstanding military strike capabilities to showcase itself as a regional hegemon in South Asia and great power in the world. Nonetheless, it has not changed the strategic relationship between Pakistan and India (according to the prominent nuclear expert Dr. Jaspal ) but, it amplified the arms race in the region.

Dr. Jaspal states that the NASR is a cost-effective way (due to Pakistan’s resource constraints), to alleviate the rapidly growing conventional asymmetries between India and Pakistan and to counter the threat of limited war. In a nutshell, Nasr has poured cold water on India’s Cold Start Doctrine and this weapon system has augmented full spectrum deterrence posture while, remaining within the precincts of the policy of credible minimum deterrence, against prevailing and evolving threat spectrum more effectively including India’s ballistic missile defense and other air defense systems.

Related

Sonia Naz is a visiting Lecturer at International Islamic university and university of Lahore Islamabad. The writer has a degree of M. Phil in International Relations from the COMSATS University Islamabad. She has done Masters in Defence and Diplomatic Studies from Fatima Jinnah University. She frequently writes on Regional Security, Nuclear Terrorism, Nuclear Security and South Asian Nuclear Politics which have been published in various national, international blogs and newspapers. She can be reached at nazsonia68[at]gmail.com

The Encroaching Impact of Arms Trade on South Asia’s Geopolitics

In his
famous farewell address to the American Public in 1961, President Dwight D.
Eisenhower had both defined and warned against the encroaching influence of
what was then termed as the US’s ‘Military-Industrial Complex. ’Speaking of the
growing synergy between the US Military and the US’s fast rising defense and
arms industry, President Eisenhower (himself a highly decorated former US
General) had taken both time and considerable thought to highlight what he
believed was a grave threat to the ideals of peace and prosperity for which the
United States had stood for within the Post-War scenario. What’s more, he had
said it right in the middle of the Cold War at a time when the US was engaged
in an arms race for survival with the Soviet Union.

Six decades
later, as one surmises the far-reaching impacts of the same Military Industrial
Complex on the present day’s international politics, President Eisenhower’s
warning seems more like the realization of a cryptic prophecy more than
anything. In fact it has become increasingly difficult to find a parallel to
the way the intersection of money and power affects global peace and
prosperity, the way it is affected by the intersection of defense and foreign
policy at the hands of the world’s arms industries.

This is
best exemplified today by how lucrative arms contracts at the state level have
increasingly come to take growing precedence over key foreign policy decisions,
particularly by the world’s major powers. Thus, it is no secret that the
world’s foremost arms importers enjoy considerably close ties with their
suppliers. This is markedly apparent in the long history of close ties between
the United States and Saudi Arabia which have increased manifold since the
latter recently took over India as the World’s largest arms importer. The
importance given to Saudi Arabia’s defense contracts in the US is such that the
entire diplomatic fallout from the Jamal Khashoggi affair last year was
presented as an unnecessary inconvenience by none other than President Trump
himself.

The same
bonhomie is also visible in the US’s growing defense and strategic ties with
India. As the top importer of arms for the entire previous decade, India’s
lucrative market for arms contracts is fuelled by its fast rising economy as
well as its need to modernize its aging soviet-era platforms.

Whereas the
bulk of India’s military hardware is sourced from Russian defense
manufacturers, US defense contractors such as Lockheed Martin and Boeing have consistently
eyed gaining a wider share of the Indian market. This includes the delivery of
the first of 22 Apache attack helicopters and 15 Chinook helicopters made to
the Indian Air force earlier this month.
It also includes a similar deal that was recently signed between the
United States and India to purchase 24 Sea Hawk helicopters to further expand
the latter’s naval capabilities.

Yet,
perhaps the most lucrative opportunity for US defense contractors coming out of
India is the Indian Air Force’s latest tender for 114 fighter aircraft to
replace its soviet era MiG squadrons. Worth around $18 billion, the Indian
government’s requirements are based around developing an indigenous production
base built on large-scale transfers of technology, training and maintenance
operations. With the long-term goal of reducing its dependence on imports and
developing its own local arms industry, India’s requirements thus extend beyond
the mere procurement of platforms. Instead, they involve a unique opportunity
for the world’s foremost arms manufacturers to gain a long-term foothold within
the Indian market, while simultaneously investing in the country’s rapid
economic growth.

These
aspects are clearly evident in Lockheed Martin’s most recent sales pitch to
India regarding the F-21 Fighter Aircraft. Offered as an exclusive India only
upgrade of the widely used F-16fighter aircraft, the F-21 is being marketed as
a highly viable solution to India’s modernization needs. With its production
line planned on being based in India, Lockheed is aiming to build on last
year’s announcement that it would be transferring the production of the F-16’s
wings to its joint facilities in India by 2020.

If carried
through, these developments are likely to have a serious impact on the
trajectory of US-India relations for many decades to come. This in turn would
also significantly affect both China’s and Russia’s approach to South Asia,
particularly with respect to Pakistan. In fact much of the discourse on the
development of Indo-US military ties is already based directly on the US’s strategic
rivalry with China over the Indo-Pacific region. They very raison d’être for
the Quadrilateral alliance, and the re-designation of the US Military’s Pacific
Command to the ‘Indo-Pacific Command’ are all cases in point.

However, going
back to President Eisenhower’s warning over the encroaching influence of the
US’s Military-Industrial Complex, the above developments assume a slightly
different context when viewed from the perspective of the US’s powerful defense
lobby. That while the benefits of supplanting Russian defense contractors with
US ones within India’s growing arms industry may not be stated as an explicit
policy objective by the US State Department or the White House ;there are
definitely many in Washington that would wholeheartedly welcome such a
scenario.

From a
purely realist perspective, many would consider the above developments simply
as one of the many instances of real politik that characterize our world today.
However, for the few idealists left amongst us, it is becoming increasingly
difficult to assess whether the US’s major arms agreements are serving as a
subordinate corollary to, or a key determining factor of its foreign policy
choices. As a super-power that has long predicated its actions on the ideals of
maintaining peace, freedom and stability, it is quite troubling to witness its
foreign policy so increasingly and unabashedly driven by power, greed and
profitability, especially in this day and age.

Related

IISS Research: Europe cannot defend itself without U.S.

International
research institutes very often provide assessments which cause just a
revolution in the thinking of ordinary people and even politicians. Such
reports give impetus to decisive actions and revision of existing strategies
and politics.

One of such
reports is “Defending
Europe: scenario-based capability requirements for NATO’s European members”
made by the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS). An
independent open-source high-level assessment of how the defence of Europe,
would look if the United States had left NATO and did not contribute militarily
has been published in May.

Though it
is stated that research paper “does not intend to predict future conflicts nor
the intentions of any of the actors involved”, it gives Europe the reasons to
rethink situation and take some actions.

The 50-page
report applies scenario analysis to generate force requirements, and assesses
the ability of NATO’s European member states to meet these requirements.

The experts
give two scenarios for the development of events in the absence of financial
support from the U.S. The first scenario examined deals with the protection of
the global sea lines of communication (SLOCs). In this scenario, the United
States has withdrawn from NATO and has also abandoned its role of providing
global maritime presence and protection, not just for its own national interest
but also as an international public good. It thus falls to European countries
to achieve and sustain a stable maritime-security environment in European
waters and beyond, to enable the free flow of international maritime trade, and
to protect global maritime infrastructure. The IISS assesses that European NATO
members would have to invest between US$94 billion and US$110bn to fill the
capability gaps generated by this scenario.

The second
scenario deals with the defence of European NATO territory against a state-level
military attack. In this scenario, tensions between Russia and NATO members
Lithuania and Poland escalate into war after the US has left NATO. Russia uses
its ally Belarus to deploy troops in its territory.

Belarus
(borders Poland and Lithuania) puts its armed forces on alert, its military and
air-defence command and control (C2) structures are integrated into Russian
networks, and there is a limited mobilisation of reserves. Russian logistic,
air defence and C2 units deploy to Belarus, as does the full 1st Guards Tank
Army and an air-assault brigade.

This war
results in the Russian occupation of Lithuania and some Polish territory seized
by Russia. Invoking Article V, the European members of NATO direct the Supreme
Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR) to plan Operation Eastern Shield to reassure
Estonia, Latvia and Poland, and other front-line NATO member states, by
deterring further Russian aggression. European NATO also prepares and assembles
forces for Operation Eastern Storm, a military operation to restore Polish and
Lithuanian government control over their territories.

The IISS
assesses that European NATO members would have to invest between US$288bn and
US$357bn to fill the capability gaps generated by this scenario. These
investments would establish a NATO Europe force level that would likely allow
it to prevail in a limited regional war in Europe against a peer adversary.

The matter
is some of the capabilities provided by US forces, such as logistics and
sustainment for land forces, may be relatively straightforward if not cheap to
replace.

However
others are almost unique to the US, and it would be difficult to substitute European
capabilities.

One of the
implications of this research is the enduring importance of the US in military
terms for the defence of Europe. This study provides a reality check for the
ongoing debate on European strategic autonomy.

The IISS
assesses that the recapitalisation across the military domains would take up to
20 years, with some significant progress around the ten- and 15-year marks.

Europe
should also take into account that though this scenario is only hypothetical,
in reality Russia and Belarus continue intensive military training. In October
they are going to conduct massive joint military exercise Union Shield 2019
simulating joint military activity in case of armed conflict. There is concern
that Europe has capabilities to appropriately react on such activities without
the U.S.

In other
words, the authors of the report demonstrate the direct dependence of the
European countries on the U.S. in military sphere and even prescribe a certain
path of action to be pursued by European NATO governments. If Europe really
wants to be independent, it should start with increasing its capabilities and
break a deep dependence on the U.S. and its money.

Related

Turkey is the Guarantor of Peace in the Black Sea region

The wider
Black Sea region—which brings together the littoral states plus neighbouring
countries—is experiencing a rapidly shifting security environment that combines
large-scale conventional military threats, internationalized civil wars and
protracted conflicts, as well as weapons of mass destruction (WMD) challenges.
As such, a fragile set of states caught between the Euro-Atlantic community, on
the one hand, and Russia and its allies, on the other, has emerged as a key
interface between the two security communities.

Since the
1990s, most of the world’s identified cases of illicit trafficking of nuclear
materials—fissile materials, in particular—have been located in countries
around the Black Sea. The nuclear security situation in the region is further
complicated by the existence of areas with unstable governance and protracted
conflicts such as in Transnistria, Abkhazia, South Ossetia and areas of Eastern
Ukraine since 2014.

The
Washington’s open, aggressive behavior in the international arena pushes
traditional allies away from it. But despite the escalation of the conflict
with Turkey, the United States, being the founding member of NATO, is still
pursuing the goal of strengthening its presence in the Black Sea.

Today, the
main allies of the White House in this region are the leadership of Georgia and
Ukraine, who dream of entry into NATO and accept all the imposed conditions.
However, for more than 80 years the presence of warships of non-Black Sea
powers, that could enter the sea via the Bosphorus, has been regulated by the
Montreux Convention Regarding the Regime of the Straits. According to it, the
total non-Black Sea tonnage, with few exceptions, is limited to 15 thousand
ships. It prevents the emergence of something more significant there than a
detachment of light forces, one or two large warships. At the same time for
warships there are restrictions on the class and duration of stay. In
particular, ships of non-Black Sea states can stay in the water area for no
more than 21 days.
Any attempts to violate this document will be extremely negatively perceived by
Turkey, that should be one of the leading players in the region. It is
impossible to revise the convention without the consent of Turkey, and only
supporting by Ankara country can provide overwhelming superiority in the Black
Sea.

In such a situation, the Pentagon considers it possible to use the navigable
channel of Istanbul for the passage of American aircraft carriers, that will
connect the Marmara and the Black Sea. A channel of about 50 km in length will
run parallel to the Bosphorus, while the Montreux Convention will not extend to
it. The construction of Channel Istanbul will be completed in 2023.

By the end
of construction, everything will depend on the leadership of Turkey. If Ankara
concedes and allows the passage of the US Navy aircraft carriers through the
new channel, it will surrender all its positions in the Black Sea to the
Pentagon.

Meanwhile,
NATO member countries (this is not about Bulgaria and Romania) maintain a
military presence in the Black Sea region. The Sea Shield 2019 naval drills
ended in mid-April, and the reconnaissance ship HMS Echo of the British Royal
Navy continues to carry out its mission in the Black Sea.

The US Navy
already has 11 atomic high-speed aircraft carriers, each with about 90
aircraft. If we imagine that a small part of them will be placed in the Black
Sea, then Russia will receive a defensive response. And then all the terrible
scenarios of hostilities are likely to happen.

There is a hope that the Turkish government has enough resilience and determination in confronting the harsh rhetoric of other NATO partners.